On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:56:47PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Before wondering whether PNG files should have an additional > compression level, is there any reason why a better PNG compression > isn't used in the first place? For instance, "optipng -o9" tries > various parameters and keeps the best one.
So recompress upstream PNGs and suffix +dfsg to the source version? There might be some disadvantages to this. If you are using VCS to manage the package, you are probably carrying the upstream PNGs in that already, so there's an appreciable increase in repository size to carry the optimized PNGs too. Another approach could be to inject optipng into the build process and treat the outputs like compiler output (packed into binary packages, thrown away on clean), but then repeated builds could be CPU-expensive. Perhaps getting upstream to carry better-compressed PNGs in their next release is a good idea. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120829140143.GA22300@debian
